[ConservativeMan55]

what? Is this series?

[dead]

(arms in the air, just reaching the top of the rollercoaster)

Here we go! Whee!

[wysiwyg]

CONFIRMING THE YOUNG EARTH CREATION-FLOOD MODEL

Right... Also, the earth is flat and astronauts never went to the moon.

[ThinkPlease]

Here's something for y'all.

[ken5050]

Sign up for the remedial course in headline writing given by Jason Blair

[Blood of Tyrants]

To those who refuse to believe, no amount of evidence is neccessary.

[Blood of Tyrants]

I meant, To those who refuse to believe, no amount of evidence is ADEQUATE. Doh!

[Right Wing Professor]

These guys have no shame. Humphreys, in an article posted a few weeks ago, claimed 'accelerated nuclear decay' to explain the radiopotassium dates of ancient rocks. OK; however, if accelerated nuclear decay happened, how come the 14C in the present samples didn't decay?

Stating the obvious; not peer reviewed, not published, chances are they're seeing contamination by modern 14C.

[laker_dad]

14C?? Skinny with a good handfull...

[SengirV]

Yep, now I believe. God created us and put fossils in the ground to make us think that the Earth was far older than it is. God then make the vast universe(billions of light year wide) and then fooled us by putting photons of light from object MANY(< 15) billions of light years away 999999999999999999999/1000000000000000000000ths the way from these objects to earth so it would only make it seem that the universe is really that old(Everything was created in 6 days, right?). etc....

I've got a bridge in Brooklyn that I would like to sell. You interested?

[sleepy_hollow]

This is extremely interesting. Even if you are not a creationist, as I readily admit I am, you should at least read the abstract. Bottom line is there is evidence to suggest that carbon dating (done using Carbon 14) casts doubt on the conventionally accepted dates for certain fossils. So much so, in fact, that a pattern appears to emerge that indicates a whole lot of stuff was snuffed out at the same time. Certainly should give one pause to eflect eiethre on the theories or on the dating methods at least. Please recall that dating of fossils is often done by reference to an assumed model for where the fossils should be found (it is circular logic, but that's just slant-foreheaded dumb old creationist me speaking).

By the way I work with some of the country's premier scientists and thinkers and have been doing so for over a 2 decades. I can assure you that these folks definitely put their pants on the same way non-scientists do. They are fallible, opinionated and prejudiced just like the est of us. Their profession does not exempt them from the human race.

[VadeRetro]

(One gram of modern carbon contains about 6 x 10 ^{10 14} C atoms, and 43.6 half-lives should reduce that number by a factor of 7.3 x 10 ^-14 .)

It's a quibble, but that's a very tiny reduction factor where a great one is needed. (You just cut the original amount of C-14 in half 43 times.) I would expect a scientific paper to be proofread.

... organic samples from every portion of the Phanerozoic record show detectable amounts of C! 14 C/C ratios from all but the youngest Phanerozoic samples appear to be clustered in the range 0.1-0.5 pmc (percent modern carbon), regardless of geological ‘age.’

The short answer to what is going on here is "Abuse the instrument, measure noise." There's a preferred instrument for every date range, one for which the element half-life makes sense. C-14 is only useful for very recent objects because of the short half-life. With any physical measurement, as the thing being measured shrinks, the spike of signal tends to go down not to zero but into a fringe of noise. These guys appear to be lawyering on the noise.

[The Iguana]

Another 3,000 post thread in the making.

[trebb]

And God said, "LET THERE BE LIGHT." But, the Dims shut their eyes tight because too much light exposes the truth and they would have none of it.

[GluteusMax]

ping

[Prof Engineer]

ping

[fishtank]

humdinger ping

[ThinkPlease]

Looks to me like Baumgardner is dating very old rocks, and finding some carbon in all ages of rock. He then notes that ages for said rocks using the C-14 dating method will be skewed, since there is abnormal amounts than would be expected by him.

Not having any real background in radiometric dating, I can only use the knowledge I gained while I stayed in that Holiday Inn Express last night (i.e. web browsing). The thing I am curious about is the date ranges of the objects dated. That is, the C-14 method is known to be valid for certain date ranges, usually 50,000 to 100,000 years. What are the radiometric dates for these objects, not just from one element, but from a broad spectrum of decay measurments? The article seems to assume that people only measure with C-14, yet we all know that is not the case, measurements are done across a spectrum of elements and weighted and averaged according to reliability. I also see absolutely no support for the last line of the conclusions in the paper.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

I think I've seen this before. The authors neglected to describe what they were calling "fossilized organic material" and then measured C14 from rocks.

They also didn't address the effect of assuming changes in radioactive decay rates over time that their theory requires.

[rwfromkansas]

Um..if the earth is so young, explain how the dinosaurs lived 65 million years ago????

Too bad there aren't more old earth creationists.